WSP07999

• File Number: 8062.200
• Description: Federal Reserved Water Rights - USFS - Water Division 2 - Negotiating Principles and Settlement
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 8/21/1996
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Technical Workgroup - Stream Survey - August 21 1996
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Data

.

.

e

nOOliS

NATIONAL FOREST RESERVED WATER RIGHT CLAIMS
COLORADO WATER DIVISION 2
TECHNICAL WORKGROUP
STREAM SURVEY

SURVEY DATE: AUllust 21.1996
STREAM NAME: Chalk Creek

STREAM NO: 75A

HYDROLOGY:
Drainage Area at Gaging Stations: 48 sq. Ml; 83 sq. mi. and 97 sq. mi. respectively
3 Stream Gaging Stations: Chalk Creek nr St. Elmo (both Upper & Lower Stations)
Chalk Creek nr Nathrop
Period of Record: 1914-19,
19/2-16 and 1950-56 respectively
may jun jul aug sep Mean
105 222 107 47.5 26A 49.8

Average Flows:
oct nov dec jan feb mar apr
cfs 19A 12.5 10.8 9.01 8.27 913 19.1
No stats on Lower St. Elmo
28.5 231 19.9 19.6 19.0 18.1 20A 97.9 228 92.0 56A 34.9 54.9
AF 39,746 (Nathrop)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
Special WildIife\Fish Habitat:
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species if any:
Special Considerations:

QUESTIONS:
Would CWCB instream flows meet USFS needs? If not, why not?:
Yes, CWCB instreamflows would meet USFS needs at the new QP's. Use 8 cfs year
round to quantify USFS claim on the NF Chalk Ck and have CWCB and CDOW provide
recommendations for Chalk above St. Elmo and Baldwin Ck USFS also wants flushing
flows on NF Chalk Ck and Chalk Ck above St. Elmo to maintain habitat and move
sediment between May 15 and July 15.

If water is developed from stream, what protections does the USFS know would have to
be provided? None identified.

Is potential development compatible with USFS needs? If not, why not?
Yes, with new QP's, Upper Arkansas WCD can exercise their plan of augmentation and
exchange to serve numerous wells (est. 1,000) in the area as Chalk Creek is not over
appropriated. Need to protecl water quality improvement dollars spent above St. Elmo.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
(Le. can QP's be moved, CWCB instream flows acceptable, etc.)
Delete existing QP and add 3 new ones as described above. Use 8 cfs year round
instreamflow to quantify USFS claim on NF Chalk Creek Have CWCB and CDOW provide
instreamflow recommendationsfor Chalk above St. Elmo and Baldwin Ck. Have USFS define
flushing flow amount and duration on NF Chalk and Chalk above St. Elmo. Limited upstream
exchange protection required with new QP' s. Alternative discussed was to locate QP above
Alpine and use 18 cfs to quantify USFS baseflow.
ATTACHMENTS: List of attendees at the August 21, 1996 meeting and stream maps lists of
water rights in area provided by the SEO.

RANDYlC:\MSOFFICE\ WINWORDID2FSRWRFOR

2

JI)